Forum on fleet's fate

I attended this hearing yesterday. I heard the State view that they may not be able to force the Federal Government to act expeditiously or enforce any fines upon the Maritime Administration. There was also testimony from environmental, social justice, and professional organizations as well as informed individuals with a stake in the continuing decay of the 74 ship fleet.
I heard representatives from a ship dismantling, building, and repair business express frustration at having everything in order to begin fleet dismantling, new construction, and ship repair at Mare Island in 6 months except for the fact that they cannot get a lease from Lennar. I heard a representative of Lennar's interests say that there is "a lot going on" at Mare Island, with about 2000 jobs. Compared to the success of the former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, with a successful industrial/commercial foundation, no housing developments, and now 7000 jobs, Mare Islands assets are highly underutilized.
I read today in another article that the vital railway infrastructure on MI is not going to be maintained by Lennar, causing severe disruption of the industrial capabilities of several MI businesses. It is my opinion that Lennar is slowly putting the squeeze on MI's industrial capabilities, which may even eventually extend to the metals recycling operation on the far North end, also a railroad user. The cost expressed by Lennar to maintain the railroad seems overly inflated to me. When the Navy had the railroad, some seasonal weed abatement and routine switch lubrication was the bulk of the maintenance. The tenants, I believe, already pay a Common Area Maintenance fee and it would seem that with so much "going on", they would rather pay a little more to keep railroad service than lose it all together. The railroad is the arterial system of the MI industrial heritage.
In my view, Vallejo's partnering with Lennar to direct the fate of Mare Island, has denied the people of Vallejo revenues and jobs from a casino, commercial dredge spoils impoundment, a shipyard and ancillary industrial/commercial uses. Now, on an even larger regional level, a private corporation is all that stands in the way of the peoples urgent need to resolve the impacts of a potential floating Superfund site near all of us.

What do social justice representatives have to do with this issue except for a chance to obtain funds for their non-nautical programs?

Willig, the social justice Democrats I speak to in Vallejo tell it this way: We have a homeless problem, we have a shortage of jobs, we have a shortage of tax revenues, lots of challenges. We also have a curious group of people in town now that one would think would be in favor of helping the people at the bottom; people that have no chance of becoming a cancer researcher and Touro. Blue collar type jobs are really the only viable option for them on their climb up into the middle class. The curious group seems to talk a good social justice game but where the rubber meets the road they fall miserably short. There must be other agendas at work and good old fashioned greed is likely at the root.

Since these aren't Navy ships as the writer claims - MARAD is part of the transportation department, these are old cargo ships - how we trust her story. She doesn't even know what kind of ships they are or what government agency is responsible for them.

Wasn't the study done in the fall of 2006

Two words - Target Practice!!

They would still have to be cleaned of marine organisms before they are towed out of the Bay Area. The Navy does prepare some of their ships in the fleet for target exercises, and they are cleaned on the inside as well. The 6471Iowa will never go to Mare Island. The water is too shallow forever.

While Senator Wiggin’s public hearings were useful in describing the toxic impact of these World War II decaying ships, I was surprised at the lack of urgency by public agencies and the nat resource defense fund. Bruce Wolfe, executive officer of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Board described that he became aware of this decade long problem through the press. Over the last year he has sent the Maritime Administration advisory ‘letters’ regarding the release of approximately 19 tons of toxic metals, sediments issues, and their practices of scraping hulls without regard to the environmental damage. By his own admission, these letters were futile as Maritime has repeatedly failed to respond to his requests and, in some cases, continued to move ships and scrape their hulls in the San Francisco Bay without adequate safeguards or scientific monitoring. Regrettably, Mr. Wiggins called for more study of the issue, using the $1.5 million Congressional appropriation Senator Boxer supported and up to $8 million of additional funds. This is more study, not action.

In my opinion, more study of the toxic impact on the environment is not the central issue. The toxic release is substantial, pernicious, continuing, and a clear and present hazard to numerous species that inhabit the Bay as well as those who might fish and innocently consume elevated levels of toxins. If this was an oil spill, a sewage release, or a chemical accident of similar magnitude, the public would expect prompt action and remediation. We would expect quarantines, warnings, substantial fines, and immediate injunctions to prohibit further damages.

To their credit, The Natural Resource Defense Council is attempting to fill the void left by public agencies and has sued the Maritime Administration. Unfortunately, Ms. Anjali Jaiswal indicated that the normal course of legal events would take approximately two years before a ruling against the Maritime Agency’s conduct would result.

Even the most constructive solution presented by Allied Defense Recycling to drydock these ships at Mare Island would take 7 years to resolve the issue.

Please:‘Action, not Words’.

Mark Montgomery wrote:

While Senator Wiggin’s public hearings were useful in describing the toxic impact of these World War II decaying ships, I was surprised at the lack of urgency by public agencies and the nat resource defense fund. Bruce Wolfe, executive officer of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Board described that he became aware of this decade long problem through the press. Over the last year he has sent the Maritime Administration advisory ‘letters’ regarding the release of approximately 19 tons of toxic metals, sediments issues, and their practices of scraping hulls without regard to the environmental damage. By his own admission, these letters were futile as Maritime has repeatedly failed to respond to his requests and, in some cases, continued to move ships and scrape their hulls in the San Francisco Bay without adequate safeguards or scientific monitoring. Regrettably, Mr. Wiggins called for more study of the issue, using the $1.5 million Congressional appropriation Senator Boxer supported and up to $8 million of additional funds. This is more study, not action.
In my opinion, more study of the toxic impact on the environment is not the central issue. The toxic release is substantial, pernicious, continuing, and a clear and present hazard to numerous species that inhabit the Bay as well as those who might fish and innocently consume elevated levels of toxins. If this was an oil spill, a sewage release, or a chemical accident of similar magnitude, the public would expect prompt action and remediation. We would expect quarantines, warnings, substantial fines, and immediate injunctions to prohibit further damages.
To their credit, The Natural Resource Defense Council is attempting to fill the void left by public agencies and has sued the Maritime Administration. Unfortunately, Ms. Anjali Jaiswal indicated that the normal course of legal events would take approximately two years before a ruling against the Maritime Agency’s conduct would result.
Even the most constructive solution presented by Allied Defense Recycling to drydock these ships at Mare Island would take 7 years to resolve the issue.
Please: ‘Action, not Words’.

The Chronicle today had a curious article about an obsolete ocean liner that slipped out of the Bay to a destination unknown, most likely a scrapping beach in the Third World. There appears to be no interest in this administration to enforce environmental laws regarding the export of toxic ships or abatement of the Suisun fleet conditions. I agree with you that the State essentially said that they could not ultimately force the Federal Government to do anything about Suisun and many have said that it will take an administration change to address this problem ASAP.

Please drydock and dismantle these ships locally, and soon. Perhaps with the coming of a more inclusive federal government, a much-needed jobs program would rid our local environment of many serious toxins, bolster a sagging economy, and give some shine to many politicos' resumees. Seems like a can't-miss plan!